[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:

>> I'll try to move forward in the direction of a more consensual proposal
>> about the declassification. 

>> So, my conclusion is that it would be nice to have two types of
>> publications:

>> 1) Selected Readers
>> 2) Selected Content

>> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
>> debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want
>> to read, basically, the need of identification of the reader and
>> the agreement to a NDA on the same terms applied to every debian
>> developer about the privacy of the mailing list.

Well, if we let anybody read it, it has absolutely no point asking for
an NDA. Your proposal says that anybody can get read it, if he signs
an NDA. This procedure could be a useful tool if we restricted it to,
say, people like Biella Coleman that have a "real use", sanctioned by
Debian and all, out of the_whole_ archive. (This should not keep us
from opening up nearly everything else.)

>> I hope this is closer to a consensus...

> Afraid not. This proposal basically creates a second class of people
> -- those who we want to sign NDA's to be able to read stuff.

> That's even further away from 'openness and transparency' than the
> status quo. The idea that developers sometimes have private things
> to say is at least defendable; the idea that Debian is joining the
> NDA crap is not, IMNSHO.

NDA's have a bad reputation in our community; sometimes they make
sense. They are just a formal version of "yes, I understand the
information I get is confidential; I will treat it as such". I think
it makes sense for very selected readers that have a good use of the
whole archive. It is indeed a bit silly if anyone can just sign it and
get access.


Reply to: